Legal Research
Cases
Tamati v The King

Tamati v The King

Case [2023] NZHC 2846 11 October 2023

Aggravating Factors

Culpability

Sentencing

Discount for Guilty Plea

Limitation Periods

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CRI-2023-443-31

[2023] NZHC 2846

BETWEEN
JAXON HENARE TAMATI

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 19 September 2023

Appearances:

N P Bourke for Appellant (via AVL)

W J Harvey and S C Baker for Respondent

Judgment:

11 October 2023

JUDGMENT OF McQUEEN J

[1] On 7 August 2023, Mr Jaxon Tamati was sentenced alongside Mr Matthew Raana-Parker and Mr Hayden Cameron by Judge Greig in the New Plymouth District Court, to four years and four months’ imprisonment on a single charge of injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.1 Mr Tamati pleaded guilty to that charge.

[2] Mr Tamati appeals against that sentence, saying that it is manifestly excessive. He says that the starting point was outside of the available range, insufficient consideration was given to his lesser involvement and reduced culpability, and that inadequate credit was given for his guilty plea.

[3] The Crown opposes the appeal and submits that the end sentence was within range. Counsel say that the starting point reflects conventional sentencing principles for grievous bodily harm offending, and that the guilty plea discount was appropriate.

1 R v Raana-Parker [2023] NZDC 16457.

TAMATI v R [2023] NZHC 2846 [11 October 2023]

[4]For the reasons below, I consider that the appeal should be dismissed.

Factual background

The offending

[5] Mr Tamati is a patched member of the Rebels gang. On 10 October 2020, there was a Rebels function at their president’s address. Mr Tamati, Mr Raana-Parker and Mr Cameron all attended. Mr Raana-Parker is a patched member and Mr Cameron at that time was a prospect.

[6] In the early hours of 11 October 2020, the victim in this matter, Mr Koha, drove to Mr Tamati’s house, with the intention of obtaining methamphetamine, but found that no one was home. Mr Koha was known to Mr Tamati, Mr Raana-Parker and Mr Cameron. While Mr Koha was at Mr Tamati’s house, Mr Tamati arrived home with his partner, intoxicated. Mr Tamati was infuriated that Mr Koha had arrived unannounced, despite his apologies.

[7] While Mr Tamati spoke with a friend who had arrived with Mr Koha, Mr Koha went outside to his car, where he was confronted by Mr Cameron. During that confrontation, Mr Koha punched Mr Cameron, rendering him unconscious. Following this, Mr Koha became scared that he would be subjected to gang retaliation, and he therefore ran away to hide. About an hour later, Mr Raana-Parker called Mr Koha and told him to go back to Mr Tamati’s house. Mr Koha trusted Mr Raana-Parker and did as he asked, on the proviso that they meet alone. Mr Raana-Parker then picked Mr Koha up and took him back to Mr Tamati’s house, accompanied by Mr Cameron and another unidentified person unknown to him.

[8] On arrival, Mr Tamati, Mr Raana-Parker and Mr Cameron took Mr Koha to a stand-alone garage. While inside the garage, Mr Tamati threw punches…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Tamati v The King

Details

AGLC: Tamati v The King [2023] NZHC 2846
Case: [2023] NZHC 2846
Decision Date: 11 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Jaxon Tamati, appeals his sentence for injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, arguing it is manifestly excessive. The case was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, New Plymouth Registry. The Crown opposes the appeal, asserting that the sentence was within the appropriate range.

The legal issues were whether the District Court judge erred in setting the starting point, whether the guilty plea discount was appropriate, and if the sentence was manifestly excessive. The starting point was determined based on the aggravating factors, which included extreme violence, multiple attackers, and a gang element. The Court found that the District Court judge appropriately placed the offending within band three of the Taueki guideline. The judge's assessment of Tamati's role and culpability was also upheld, as it was concluded that Tamati's culpability remained high despite his lesser involvement in the offending.

The guilty plea discount was within the range available to the sentencing judge, considering the timing of the plea and the strength of the prosecution case. The Court found that the judge did not err in granting a 15% discount, as the plea was not entered at the earliest reasonable opportunity and the prosecution case was strong.

As both the starting point and the guilty plea discount were within the range available to the judge, the Court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed.

The final orders are as follows: Mr Tamati's appeal is dismissed.

Orders